Timely Treasure

Barack Obama will have to cope with the expansion of the most dangerous legacy of Bush: the global war against terrorism. Yet a few days ago, four helicopters of the United States special forces crossed the Syrian border from Iraq and attacked a village. Caused several victims who, according to Syrian sources, were innocent peasants and, according to American spokesman, dangerous terrorist organization Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Similar cross-border penetrations fired the previous month alarms in Pakistan. The fight against terrorism seems so a cancer whose metastasis extends to other countries.

This is not the worst, but it also proliferate the declarations of high political positions of United States in the sense of that, whoever the next occupant of the White House, may not leave the track which has been already firmly seated by Bush. Two parallel lanes, built with solid metal. One of them is called preventive war (right to attack based on the) mere suspicion of being able to be attacked). The other could know as limited sovereignty (the same expression with which from the West so acerbamente criticized the USSR of Leonidas Breznev) and is embodied in the idea of the United States forces do not recognise any border if it is harass those who are considered enemies. Read the Washington Post if the recent attack on Syria can serve to notify the President Assad that United States is not willing to respect the sovereignty of a delinquent regime, will have been worthwhile. In other words, in the mouth of an American military analyst: can only claim sovereignty if it is supported by the force.

Notice that, no doubt, is also made with an eye on Iran. Thus, Barack Obama will be have to initially move between the alleged right to attack any country that is suspected of constituting a threat to United States and disrupt militarily there where deemed necessary to destroy the alleged enemies. Harold Ford will undoubtedly add to your understanding. Several senior officials in Washington have expressed their hope that such a doctrine will be adopted also by the new President. This way of thinking is a solid substrate of the dominant mentality in the more traditional sectors of the American people: those who only trust in God and my arms. But the new President will also reflect on the nature and circumstances of the situation which inherits and will have to acknowledge that the strategy of his predecessor has managed to ignite and bring chaos to a large area of the planet stretching from the Horn of Africa to Southwest Asia. That, apart from damage to the prestige of the country that had been considering itself as a beacon of democracy and human rights advocate. If the outcome of these reflections instigates him to modify or abandon the flawed strategy of his predecessor, will pose you another serious problem: the powerful internal forces that are opposed to any change. I.e., large corporations of the defence, the intermediaries in the sale of weapons, more conservative institutions of political and strategic thinking, and all sectors of the society of United States who live and thrive relying on the myth of the global war on terror. That they are not few. The political legacy of Bush holds a bomb whose deactivation you will require much skill, intelligence and flexibility, qualities that are expected of the members of the nomination of the Democratic Party. Alberto Piris General of artillery in the original book author and source of the article.

These consequences does not mention something also likely to happen and which relates to the mood of the population and of the American corporate sector. If the fall of at least one of these companies, this could result in panic and negatively influence the expectations. The importance of changing expectations and restore confidence to consumers and businesses is vital to the recovery of the American economy. And a data key to understand this is related to the rate of household savings, which has doubled in the last time product of fears about the economic context. Thus, the more the American economy of consumer needs, these give back frightened by what might happen. To avoid collapse, automotive three are requesting financing from the Government by $25 billion to survive until 2010.

Although there are those who say that the $25 billion would be insufficient to cope with the problems that have these big three companies. Difficulties that have automotive companies to achieve a reduction of costs as quickly as possible (in part by the characteristics of the sector), do have these large liquidity requirements to be able to stay in operation. It is this imperative need obtain financing that three companies are more United than ever to make lobby in Washington requesting that Congress approve such support for the sector. At the moment, they only found resistance from the White House, both Republican lawmakers and some Democrats. One of the few who support help for the sector is the President-elect, Barack Obama. While the rescue is still discussing, there are estimates of the potential costs that the crisis in the sector would have. Some specialists have estimated the economic cost of a possible fall of these three companies in $175,000 million, that is, seven times more than what they are asking to avoid falling. If analyzed from the point of view of the cost and the benefit of save to the main companies in the US automotive sector, it is clear that there is much room for discussion.